Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sympathetic to that but I wanted some clarification. The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 is designed to highlight the fact that an attack on an emergency worker should already be seen as a specific crime. In a sense, it is an indirect aggravation because it applies to the police, workers in hospital accident and emergency departments and ambulance workers.

I am sympathetic to the amendment because of some of the evidence that we have heard about attacks involving fireworks. Some of it is on the extreme end of the spectrum of unacceptable and violent attacks against our emergency workers. There is other legislation that can be used in prosecution, so I wanted to ask about that.

Thank you.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

I am sympathetic to what Jamie Greene has outlined with regard to the need to understand the existing legislation and how it operates. I note the figures that he provided. However, I do not think that the amendment addresses an issue that concerns me—perhaps Jamie Greene could answer this point—namely that there seems to be a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system about using the existing legislation. To me, the lack of convictions indicates that either the police or the Crown are not using the legislation. I am drawing a distinction between the question whether the legislation is comprehensive enough and the question whether our criminal justice authorities are using the legislation.

I am sympathetic to the arguments for the amendment, but I would like Jamie Greene to address how it would deal with an issue that the committee considered in its report, which is what seems to be a lack of data on whether the Crown is actually using the legislation to prosecute people. My biggest concern about the bill is whether, even if we pass it, we will see the Crown Office and the police service using the legislation to prosecute people who are breaking the law. Comments on that would be helpful.

I will start with Jamie Greene’s amendment 61, which I think is a necessary inclusion and gives rise to a necessary debate. I agree that, irrespective of the location of the supplier, we need to ensure that the bill covers licences that are to be physically presented in a shop as well as licences that are to be presented online. I think that the committee agrees that it would like that to happen. We cannot make the supplier ask for the licence, so there would be a difficulty with necessitating that in law. Maybe Jamie Greene will come back on that point. However, I think that his amendment is necessary in order to make the position clear in the bill.

Earlier, you said that your intention was to ensure that sheriffs could, if they thought the offence was serious enough, give a 12-month rather than a six-month sentence, and you have also highlighted the point about the presumption against short sentences. However, is it your intention—or, indeed, hope—that sheriffs will use that additional scope to give heavier sentences? I am sympathetic to your proposal, but it all depends on your response, because it would concern me if the intention was to have heavier sentences.

If you had not gone for the licensing scheme, would it be true to say that you could still create an offence of setting off fireworks outwith the 37 days? I totally accept that the whole point of a licensing scheme is that people who do not have a licence will be prosecuted. However, under the bill, you could also have an offence of letting a firework off outside the 37 days. It is an offence to purchase a firework outwith the 37 days—that is the Government’s position—but you could still prosecute people for using fireworks outwith the 37 days.

I was a bit unsure about that in the bill, because I was not sure that everyone would understand it. I know that we will come later to the debate about what information will be given to the public. Although there is a rationale behind the 37 days on which fireworks can be sold, an ordinary member of the public needs to know about that.

I am not going to press amendment 1, but I will come back at stage 3 to debate the matter again, because I am looking for some comfort—any comfort—from the Government around running costs. There is an issue: if the consultation showed that the running costs would reach a level that none of us would be happy with, what would we do then? I hope that we would at least agree that it would undermine people’s desire to be part of a licensing scheme, whatever we might think of that scheme.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Applying for fireworks licence: mandatory requirements

On a point of order, convener. I seek clarification from the clerks. Does the convener not normally have to say how they intend to use their casting vote, so that we know that? I thought that there was a convention on that, so that members know what to expect. In meetings of the Parliament, the Presiding Officer votes for the status quo.

Thank you; that is helpful.

Amendment 46, in the name of Katy Clark, is a substantial amendment and creates a substantial debate. As I have said, I am concerned about whether the public will understand all the complexities that are involved in remaining within the law, as there are so many different offences.

I am concerned about the lack of detail around the nature of the licensing scheme. I welcome the helpful letter that the minister sent to the committee, which runs through how it will work. It is important to point out that, by supporting amendment 46, we would simply be saying that the Government should come back with firm proposals about how the scheme would look and not necessarily that the scheme should be taken out of the bill altogether. As Katy Clark said, it would still leave firework control zones, and it would still be against the law to set off fireworks within the 57 days specified in the bill.

My first concern, which I expressed in the debate on the previous group, is whether the legislation will be used by prosecutors. My second concern is whether it will be well understood. As Katy Clark said, aspects of the offences and the current law deal with the misuse of fireworks, whereas the aim of the licensing scheme is, as the Government says, to create a culture in which people understand that the use of fireworks needs to be regulated.

I have lodged an amendment—to be debated down the line—on the affordability of the licence, which is an issue that the committee raised. It would have made sense for the Government to have given the committee specific proposals on the scheme for our consideration.

I am not convinced that the Government’s assessment of the black market issue is necessarily right. I have to confess that I was concerned when I heard the industry’s presentation to the committee, which is still in my mind. If we get this wrong, I would hate it if ordinary people, who were trying to conform to the provisions on the licensing scheme and the days on which they can buy and set off fireworks, were penalised when they find that it is easier to get fireworks elsewhere. There is no doubt in my mind—and as the slide that we have seen tells us—that there will be an issue with people exploiting the situation if it is difficult to lawfully set off fireworks. For that reason, I am sympathetic to amendments 46 and 61.

Lastly, I tend to agree with Katy Clark on amendment 60. I am still not clear why we would need to use the language

“unless explicitly exempt under schedule 1”.

My only objection is that “without reasonable excuse” is the term that is normally used. Therefore, there is a question mark over amendment 60.

I thank Jamie Greene for lodging amendments 67 and 68, because it is important that we debate the issues.

On amendment 68, as I understand it, the licensing scheme is aimed at individuals. I think that it is aimed at families, social gatherings and people having displays in their back gardens. As the minister said, it is about getting people to realise that, in organising a fireworks display, even at that level, they need to plan. The amendment would widen the scope of the scheme, because an individual could apply for a licence on behalf of a community group.

The first issue that I want to raise is whether that would slightly confuse the purpose of the licensing scheme. That is notwithstanding the fact that I agree with Katy Clark and Jamie Greene that we need to sort out any barriers, financial or otherwise, for community groups in organising displays, where that is desirable. However, I wonder what there is in the bill as it stands that would prevent an individual from applying for a licence and using it for a community purpose. Does the bill already cover that?

Jamie Greene mentioned the issue of liability. As the bill is constructed at the moment, and based on an ordinary understanding, the individual who held the licence would be responsible, even though they held it on behalf of a community group. It would be the same philosophy for anyone. There might be difficulty in sorting that out. If I was to support amendment 68, I would want us to be clear that the licensing scheme is for individuals, but that there is something else for organised displays involving community groups.

It is important and valid to have a debate on the minimum age. I have never subscribed to the view that there should be a minimum age for every purpose. Some people have argued that, because people can do certain things at 16, they should be able to do other things. That is a nonsense argument because, in other parts of the legislation, it is appropriate to have a minimum age of 17 or 18. Of course, we have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which uses the age of 18. Amendment 67 would take the age beyond that.

If the amendment is intended to highlight how dangerous fireworks are and that there is a concern for those aged under 21, I would be sympathetic to that. I would not support something that is aimed at criminalising people in that age group because we think that they are more likely to cause issues. It depends on the intention behind the amendment. However, as Police Scotland raised the issue, it is perfectly legitimate to have the debate.